this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
96 points (92.9% liked)
Hacker News
3146 readers
585 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except now you have spent money on something that doesn't work. It's not "no different", it's a waste of resources.
They're not literally useless. A steel tipped hammer with a sharp tip is ALWAYS going to be one of the best tools to break a glass window. Even if it's not as reliable or easy as it's made seem in ads, it's still going to be better than your hands or random junk you have in the car. And that's not even mentioning that their whole criticism only applies to laminated glass windows.
Plenty of cars, especially older ones, still use tempered glass, which can easily be shattered with one of these.
And even the article doesn't argue that seat belt cutters don't work, only that you're unlikely to be in a situation where you can effectively use them.
And call me crazy, but if there's even a 1 in a million chance that a 15$ tool could save mine, or someone else's life, with literally no downside whatsoever to owning one, I personally consider that worth spending 15$ on.
Better than nothing but, according to the research, as useful as nothing. If you know in advance it will work on a particular car's glass then that's a different story. But if you give it as a gift or buy one without knowing and it turns out to be useless it grants a false sense of security. Someone may repeatedly try using it in an emergency instead of trying a different strategy.
You say that like it's settled fact. Was the "research" peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Has it been replicated?
Did you read the article? It's the entire reason this post exists. There are two citations that will answer your questions.
Yes I read the blog post and the linked "research". There is no indication that it has been replicated or even academically reviewed.
The linked PDF is even missing sections 8 & 9 listed in its TOC.
There, you answered your own questions. Now we know that you are just one replication study away from either feeling justified or changing your mind.